Skip to content

TVG Mediation talks? Breakdown or inevitable?

April 27, 2011

The failed ‘mediation’ talks is no surprise.

Since when has the bulldozing single-tracked mind of the commercial developer ever given a toss about the ordinary folk living down the road?

I imagine the town green area that was grudgingly offered by the greenbelt gobblers consisted of a big hole in the ground dug out to prevent the B&Q new stadium from flooding.

Now they want a new enquiry claiming new evidence!

No doubt they’d want a new inspector appointed, a bit like the new sainsbury planning committee appointed to give them the right result.

The council has to do decide on this thing, legally, and soon and stop trying to meddle with the law.

Law says ‘Town Green’ loud and clear and that has to be ratified by the council, or their reputation is mud.

Advertisements
17 Comments
  1. Richard Lane permalink
    April 28, 2011 9:06 pm

    Sacredspring

    Law, does not say it’s a town green.
    The inspector only recommended the TVG for approval, based on the evidence that was provided to her at the first hearing.
    Since that time, further evidence has been gathered by both parties, which is part of the lawful process and has to be heard and considered as part of that process. Even then it can be challenged, as I understand it.
    So if either side did not gather or present the evidence for their case properly at the first hearing, then there is a second chance to get the correct decision, plus a third through the appeal process. I’m sure you wouldn’t want it any other way.

    It would appear that the applicants have been stringing everybody along in an attempt to further delay the stadium build. They were not interested in a compromise, as their only compromise would have been to allow building of the stadium and accept the offer of a smaller TVG. They could have applied for this years ago, when the land first came under threat of development. Surprisingly they waited until an application was submitted for the stadium and only then, applied for TVG status, knowing that it it would delay things.
    low and behold they came up trumps with Ross Crail being appointed the inspector. From what I understand, 22 acres has been offered to those applicants as a village green area (the majority of the site). I gather it won’t be a pond dug from the ground, because at 22 acres it would have to include the beautiful meadows to the south of the site (as they’re described), the ones next to the trading estate and the ones most people claim to use for their leisure activities.

    It would be nice to hear Tony’s version of events of the talks, as he has relatives there and has most probably has been advising them. Or perhaps someone else that was present at the talks would like to comment. Because at the moment it just looks as though they weren’t willing to compromise in the first place and only used the talks as yet another delaying tactic.

  2. BobS permalink
    April 28, 2011 10:27 pm

    So Rich. Hurdles still to overcome:

    1. EU still to decide whether the give away of Alderman Moores and Ashton Gate car park breached state aid rules. Very embarassing for the council that they failed to get external valuations done. The law is very clear on that.

    2. Planning permission for Sainsburys through after removing all the councillors who voted against it last time. But still to get past Sec of State and then inevitable Judicial Review of the council for gerrymandering the committee and also giving too much weight to the stadium. Full video coverage of the event makes it plain for any autonomous judge to see that one.

    3. Planning permission for the stadium only just approved. But it didn’t have an Environmental Impact Assessment and the approval was based largely on the exceptional circumstances of the World Cup coming to Bristol. It isn’t. Have they reconsidered the approval ? No. Anyone up for the challenge.

    4. Town Green. Council appointed Inspector. Stated they would approve the Inspector’s decision immediately received. Then stalled ever since they didn’t like the inspector’s decision. New Evidence ? This will be funny if that is ever allowed to be tested in front of an Inspector. Even if they change the inspector. Career ending for the people who thought it was a good idea to put that evidence in.

    So what is the club to do ?

    A. Be nastier and even more aggressive to all its opponents, hoping to trample them into submission with its friends in the media and on the council

    or

    B. Be even nastier still.

    Which will the club choose ?

  3. April 29, 2011 10:07 pm

    BobS hits the nail where it hurts.

    No chance of a sympathy vote for Lansdowne & Co when they set themselves on a collision with everyone bar the loyal fan.

    I say the mediation talks by the club were a complete charade and just designed to string along the residents and the council, hoping the council will back down and grovel to the clubs demands again.

    I gather it won’t be a pond dug from the ground, because at 22 acres it would have to include the beautiful meadows to the south of the site (as they’re described),

    OK the town greeners wern’t offered the hole in the ground they were offered the car-park and access roads as the town green-whats the point in making out that you know?

    Time is rapidly approaching for Lansdowne to look at a plan B if there is one. No way out of this other than more unscrupulous skulduggery.
    You don’t get to be worth £1/2billion by being a nice community spirited citizen, but there’s still time to see the light.

  4. Richard Lane permalink
    May 1, 2011 5:13 pm

    BobS

    I thought this topic was about the TVG mediation talks.
    Instead you’ve brought up Tony Dyers complaint to the EU about land transfer.
    You’ve griped about the Sainsbury approval. And your third paragraph is an absolute joke. No way was the planning permmision obtained on the back of the world cup bid, and it’s been passed by the SOS, which I fully expect the Sainsbury one to as well. And the land transfer complaint to be thrown out.

    Which council member said they would approve the inspectors decision immediately it was received?

    Your last quotes : “So what is the club to do ?

    A. Be nastier and even more aggressive to all its opponents, hoping to trample them into submission with its friends in the media and on the council
    or
    B. Be even nastier still.

    Which will the club choose ?

    Could you give the readers an example of the club being nasty and aggresive to it’s opponents please.
    You have the perfect opportunity to prove this using this website, so carry on.

    This is yet another of those unfounded, unwarranted claims from the opponents of these plans which have been freely used without any fear of retribution.

    Sacredspring

    I don’t know exactly what has been offered, I can only go on what is needed for the stadium and what is quoted in the media as has been offered. If that is 22 acres then it’s bound to include the “Meadows” to the south.

  5. Still Waters permalink
    May 1, 2011 10:21 pm

    “Could you give the readers an example of the club being nasty and aggresive to it’s opponents please.”

    How about supporters threatening to fire-bomb a TVG supporter’s house if the stadium bid failed? Or actually stone-throwing, car-keying and tyre slashing? Of course they aren’t condoned by the club, but someone gave out the address details that were officially redacted from the Inspector’s report. I wonder who?

    How about using media consultants to slur us at every turn?

    How about the BCFC ST forum sanctioning aggressive lobbying (aka, thinly-veiled threats) to councillors?

  6. Still Waters permalink
    May 1, 2011 10:27 pm

    Apologies, I commented above on the earlier post, not sure why it ended up here, but still valid.

    “From what I understand, 22 acres has been offered to those applicants as a village green area (the majority of the site). I gather it won’t be a pond dug from the ground, because at 22 acres it would have to include the beautiful meadows to the south of the site (as they’re described), the ones next to the trading estate and the ones most people claim to use for their leisure activities. ”

    Read the planning application. The flood water run-off area requires that the ‘bit we give as village green’ will be completely dug out, then ‘landscaped’. Just like those manky sterile lawns added in to business parks as a green allowance.

  7. Still Waters permalink
    May 1, 2011 10:36 pm

    And before you claim the reports are unfounded, I suggest you contact the police inspector collating the evidence – which includes CCTV, telephone records, fingerprints and DNA testing.

  8. spider on the wall permalink
    May 2, 2011 3:05 pm

    Seems like stadium side have got hold of some sensative information that is not for public release…… ah don’t worry they will get away with it , yet again.

    Shame really if you only knew what was said in these meetings, what was offered and promptly removed, oh yes lots of things were offered but then withdrawn.

    Wasn’t so much the AV side refusing, everything was withdrawn.

    And the terms these were offered at were laughable, but once that becomes public knownledge landsdown will be a little red faced.

    omg landsdown who the hell did you think you were when you put those demands in, i know, you know.. shall we let the public know?

  9. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    May 2, 2011 3:56 pm

    For the “legal beagles” amongst you. A landowner uses security guards to keep the public from his land. But this land has been recommended as a Village Green. Is he within his rights, afterall, he owns the land, Village Green or not? Is there a precedent or will this set the law for future reference?

  10. Ashton Vale Resident permalink
    May 2, 2011 6:10 pm

    I think the security guards were told politely to “go away”………or words to that effect.

    Enjoyable Royal Wedding party I understand – shame I was working or I would have gone down as well….

    The sooner the council makes the decision on the Town Green the better so both sides can move on (to the next stage of legal wranglings).

    BTW remember all those people saying TVG law would be changed because of Ashton Vale – well a law change IS on the way….if passed, planning permission will not be allowed to be given to land until any potential Town and Village Green application has been determined. If that legislation had been in place already the Stadium could not have been given planning permission.

  11. May 3, 2011 7:49 pm

    Someone sends in the heavies to disrupt Royal Wedding Party? Er Majesty and the Duck of Cambridge will not be amused.
    The mobster-in chief should do his own dirty work anyhow like a proper landowning gent-farmer loike:

    arrr git orf moi laaaaaand!!!! Royal wedding? Mooii arrrrrrrrse!! Town Green townies plebs bawlaaaarcks!
    Red skoiii at night, town green lawrr is SHITE!!

  12. Richard Lane permalink
    May 3, 2011 9:12 pm

    Still Waters

    You are aportioning individual (to date) unproven allegations, comments on an independent website, that are no worse and sometimes less viscious and offensive than those written on this site, and so called slurs from media consultants, directly to the club.
    BobS claimed the club have been nasty. As you have taken up his mantle and answered the question posed to him and it would appear, you have been party to the talks. Let us know the truth about what has been offered and when and how the club have been nasty.
    You might also like to point out what the applicants demands were and what compromises they were willing to make.
    Surely if the talks have broken down, there is no confidentiality issue to worry about and rather than just mud slinging, you might like to put me and a few others out of our misery by saying what went on.

    Ashton Vale resident

    Does this proposed new law, make an application for a TVG null and void, if a planning application had already been submitted for the site, (as in this case). Proving that the TVG application was only made, to prevent development and not to provide a TVG, which could and should have been made prior to any other applications for the land, if a TVG was really wanted in the first place.

  13. May 4, 2011 3:17 pm

    Why would anyone want to apply for TVG whilst they have been using the greenspace for generations unless an unscrupulous landowner decides to fence it off and bulldoze it?
    Richard Lane’s tiresome whining that:

    …Proving that the TVG application was only made, to prevent development…

    is as ridiculous as it is stupid.

  14. BobS permalink
    May 4, 2011 4:17 pm

    Talk about stupid, Rich is now claiming on Otib that the AV site was where bins were tipped. Why would he say this when he knows it is not true ?

    Because he will say anything to rent a new stadium on that land.

    Rich credibility = 0

  15. Ashton Vale Resident permalink
    May 4, 2011 8:54 pm

    Mr Lane

    The new legislation, if approved, means exactly what I said it means. Namely, that until any Town or Village application has been dealt with planning permission cannot be given.

    As has been mentioned above, why should people have to go to the trouble (and public expense) of registering land as Town or Village Green to protect it – especially land supposedly protected both by national legislation (i.e Green Belt) and local legislation (Bristol Local Plan) – if there is no threat to it?

    Do you have any green space near your home in Knowle that you wish to remain as green space? Have you applied for Town or Village Green status for it? Why not?

  16. Richard Lane permalink
    May 4, 2011 9:15 pm

    Sacredspring

    If the TVG application was not made to prevent development, what was it made for?
    Wasn’t one of the issues, that the land was not fenced off? Yet you claim it was fenced off by the landlord

    Was it to have and protect a TVG? If it was, it could and should have been done before an application went in for that land to be developed. After all, the warning signs were there, when there were two previous developments on the land, the land which was so say used for 20 odd years, even though part is now a park and ride site and another section previously used by the local residents is now a tennis centre. So after these developments went ahead, the residents wait ten years or so, until another plan emerges and then they decide to act. It’s comical really, reading the utter rubbish spouted about why the TVG was not applied for prior to the stadium plans being submitted. In fact I don’t recall anyone ever explaining why there was this delay, anyone care to throw some light on the subject?

    Sacredspring says : “I say the mediation talks by the club were a complete charade and just designed to string along the residents and the council, hoping the council will back down and grovel to the clubs demands again”
    Did not the council suggest the talks? What would the club gain by delaying the process?
    It’s more like the residents were doing the stringing along and using delaying tactics.
    You really take the biscuit when it comes to ilogical talking from the rear end.

    BobS

    I am not claiming that the AV site is where bins were tipped, talk about stupid.
    You can’t or won’t differentiate between a joke and reality.
    Just for you = it was a reference to bin laden being dumped.

    I note you haven’t come up with an example of BCFC being nasty, or becoming nastier, why not? All you do is make allegations and abusive comments.

  17. Richard Lane permalink
    May 4, 2011 9:41 pm

    Ashton vale resident

    I understand what it means. Do you understand my question? If you do, perhaps being the more knowledgeable one regarding TVG application law, you might care to answer it.
    I am trying to determine if a TVG application could be applied for, when an application already exists on that land, or if it to would have to be determined before a TVG application can be considered, if the new legislation was implemented.

    The only green space I use in Knowle, is the park. I have no need to protect it as there is no apparrent threat to it. If it had already had sections of it removed, say for a park and ride and a tennis centre over the past 15 years, which gave it an “at risk of further development status”, and I looked out over it and I knew there was talk of further development. Then I might be inclined to try and protect what was remaining, rather than waiting until the day after the application went in.
    What you seem to be suggesting, is a new law is on it’s way, which will be an open invitation for anyone, to apply for TVG status and hold up, any new planning application.

    I believe an area known as the jungle, is under threat of development in Knowle. This is an area which was and might still be used by children for playing ball games, it is completely surrounded by housing. As there is another area close by, where certain locals have not used it for a dog walking and toilet facility, I would allow development to provide much needed housing., others would feel differently.

Comments are closed.